Dan....thanks for the email. Contacted Volkl's basically COO, although that isn't his title, and he gave me all of the per-production color schemes and none were green. The bay poster also contacted me and said this:

Hi
It's just the light
Is is a mobile phone photo
The colour it's the same as the one in the tennis warehouse page
Thanks

i've yet to be a string breaker and have pushed my current x1 17g on my london to frayed rocket launcher status. i wanted it to break so bad but my control was being sacrificed due to the condition of the string.

i pulled out my old Mizuno turbo pro graphite racquet.
90 in 10 pts HL 362 g w leather grip. i have since swapped out the grip for a synthetic grip w an overgrip making it less heavy and HL.

i know my strings where going bad and have enjoyed my london very much before. with my graphite racquet a bit lighter yet heavier than my london i was having a better time with it. i remember reading that the melbourne was slated as playing like a older graphite and want to give this a shot.

Wow...I haven't sen Boris in three years.He needs to start playing more tennis and less time sitting playing poker.

Click to expand...

No kidding. The interesting thing is that you could show that photo to someone who had never seen Becker before, and ask that person to point out whom they thought was the former, professional tennis player . . . . . . it would be a toss up, wouldn't it? I guess when you're aging and worth millions, it's hard to keep yourself physically sharp. However, he doesn't look in terrible shape, but it's just different seeing "Boom Boom" in a more pedestrian form.

No kidding. The interesting thing is that you could show that photo to someone who had never seen Becker before, and ask that person to point out whom they thought was the former, professional tennis player . . . . . . it would be a toss up, wouldn't it? I guess when you're aging and worth millions, it's hard to keep yourself physically sharp. However, he doesn't look in terrible shape, but it's just different seeing "Boom Boom" in a more pedestrian form.

Click to expand...

Well, in his defense, it is typical for ex-athletes to put on a lot of weight. After years of training, in-particular, for the only purpose of competing, there is no joy and little desire to train for non-competitive reasons when you've been physically active enough before you are 35 years old to equal ten people's full lifetimes of activety.

Well, in his defense, it is typical for ex-athletes to put on a lot of weight. After years of training, in-particular, for the only purpose of competing, there is no joy and little desire to train for non-competitive reasons when you've been physically active enough before you are 35 years old to equal ten people's full lifetimes of activety.

Then there's a Sampras who after his sabbatical from tennis for those several years woke up one day and said, "I'm an athlete; it's who I am, I need to break a sweat everyday." He was already playing golf and basketball every day, but he missed the rigors and competition of tennis and returned. Motivation and drive appear to be much more prevalent in Sampras' career and life still, which may explain his 14 Slams, as opposed to Becker's 6 (I think). So I guess it's a case by case deal. BTW, as a Federer fan, I have to admit that I think Sampras would trump him and Nadal if he were in this generation, as moot as the point may be; what do you think?

I'm gonna have to demo this Melbourne, especially if it playes a little lighter than the Legend. You never know.

Then there's a Sampras who after his sabbatical from tennis for those several years woke up one day and said, "I'm an athlete; it's who I am, I need to break a sweat everyday." He was already playing golf and basketball every day, but he missed the rigors and competition of tennis and returned. Motivation and drive appear to be much more prevalent in Sampras' career and life still, which may explain his 14 Slams, as opposed to Becker's 6 (I think). So I guess it's a case by case deal. BTW, as a Federer fan, I have to admit that I think Sampras would trump him and Nadal if he were in this generation, as moot as the point may be; what do you think?

I'm gonna have to demo this Melbourne, especially if it playes a little lighter than the Legend. You never know.

Click to expand...

There is a lot to be said about 1st strike ball, and Sampras' serve is one of the most intimidating in history, along with Gonzales, Newcombe, and Becker. However, modern tennis requires 1st strike on both ends of the court, which is why Djokovic and Del Potro are doing so well, and challenge Nadal and Federer. Del Potro schooled Verdasco yesterday, because Verdasco's serve didn't hurt Del Potro, yet, Del Potro's serve and return, hurt Verdasco. That is remarkable on red clay.

You also have to take into consideration that Sampras had difficulty throughout his career with good kick serves, Edberg and Rafter in particular, and always struggled against lefties, because of the OHBH and the OHBH return, regardless of his W/L record, they were always an irritant for him. As fast a Wimbledon was BITD, I bet Mac would have given Sampras all that he could take in only that championship. But obviously, that is only an OPINION--before every stalker comes out of the woodwork to go tunnel hunting--since these match-ups cannot be done without sling-shotting around the sun and doing some time travel.

There is a lot to be said about 1st strike ball, and Sampras' serve is one of the most intimidating in history, along with Gonzales, Newcombe, and Becker. However, modern tennis requires 1st strike on both ends of the court, which is why Djokovic and Del Potro are doing so well, and challenge Nadal and Federer. Del Potro schooled Verdasco yesterday, because Verdasco's serve didn't hurt Del Potro, yet, Del Potro's serve and return, hurt Verdasco. That is remarkable on red clay.

You also have to take into consideration that Sampras had difficulty throughout his career with good kick serves, Edberg and Rafter in particular, and always struggled against lefties, because of the OHBH and the OHBH return, regardless of his W/L record, they were always an irritant for him. As fast a Wimbledon was BITD, I bet Mac would have given Sampras all that he could take in only that championship. But obviously, that is only an OPINION--before every stalker comes out of the woodwork to go tunnel hunting--since these match-ups cannot be done without sling-shotting around the sun and doing some time travel.

Click to expand...

Haha! It's true that it's probably a subject better left unturned. And you bring up a good point that more players in this era would definitely take advantage of Sampras "weakness" on that side and really give him all he could handle---even more so than in his day. But, a champion of Sampras' caliber would make adjustments and mentally close out Federer and beat Nadal to the punch, imo. Oops, did I say that!:shock:

Granted, Sampras wouldn't have made a dent in Nadal on clay, and Federer would have likely won his share against Sampras as well. While we're speculating, a Sampras/Federer rivalry would have the potential to be pretty amazing. Oh yeah, and did I mention that this Melbourne sure looks like a quality stick. Sorry.

Had a hit with the Melbourne last night. It was strung with Power Fiber at a fairly low tension. The grommets still say "Titanium Lite Carbon" as on the Q10T and the DCL. I liked the Q10T and the Legend, but the Melbourne did not impress me, which was disappointing. To me it felt tinny, and had nowhere near the plow of my Legends. It did swing closer to the Q10 Tour, but did not feel as good. Methinks the Melbourne needs leather and some extra weight to truly shine.

Had a hit with the Melbourne last night. It was strung with Power Fiber at a fairly low tension. The grommets still say "Titanium Lite Carbon" as on the Q10T and the DCL. I liked the Q10T and the Legend, but the Melbourne did not impress me, which was disappointing. To me it felt tinny, and had nowhere near the plow of my Legends. It did swing closer to the Q10 Tour, but did not feel as good. Methinks the Melbourne needs leather and some extra weight to truly shine.

Click to expand...

The Melbourne is actually heavier than the Legend, but it is more evenly balanced, so you may feel that there is less mass in the head. However, better players felt that the Legend was a little head clunky--not smooth--hence, the additional .2 oz in the throat area. Also, the Melbourne is very slightly more powerful because it is a little stiffer.

I only have one guy using the Legend-to-Melbourne, and he felt that the Legend needed to be 365 grams to play well, but the Melbourne plays even better, and at only 342 grams. That is a substantial difference, and great for him since the stick does so much with a lot less. He can hit with more spin when he wants, and as a flat ball striker, he now has a lot more options. This little improvement at the 6.0 level is mega huge. Be mindful that this player's DNX 10 MPs weighed in at 380 grams.

BTW: believe it or not, the tooling for a grommet costs more than the tooling for a whole stick. Just to make a small adjustment to rid the grommet of the word, "Titanium", would cost as much as the new mold for a racquet....I sheeet you not. There is no titanium in the throat of this stick as there was in the Q10 Tour.

I got my becker melbourne this week and used it for about 2 hours tonight. I had it strung at 55lbs with a tour bite 17 / kirshbaum touch multifiber 17 hybrid...

My main racquet is a Yonex Super Rd, but I also owned the PB10 Mid, The Becker London, and the Head YT Prestige MP which I'll use to compare the Melbourne.

Overall I was impressed with the Melbourne. The weight and static feel was very similar to my Yonex. Serves were heavy and deep... and the control was very good. My backhand which is traditionally my weakness worked beautifully as I spanked balls back deep and the slices had lots of bite to them. Part of it's success was due to the tight string pattern and also the weight of the racquet and its plow thru. The biggest problem I had was on my forehand ground strokes as I didn't get as much top spin penetrating groundstrokes as I normally do... It's hard to say if this is due to hitting the ball off-center trying to get topspin or because of the 18x20 string pattern that i'm not used to... anyway, this will require some adjustments but the racquet wasn't very forgiving on those mishits.

Now to compare...

vs the London:
Both have soft comfortable hits on impact. Very comfortable when you hit the sweet spot on the Melbourne and I think the recessed grommets on the side play a huge role in that. Lots of dwell time too. Obviously, the control is much better on the Melbourne as certain balls tended to sail on me with the London. However, if your strictly looking for a heavier london, then I think you'll be dissappointed. These racquets are for two different types of games. The London made me into mostle a brusher and I had to use spin to keep the ball in. So the whippiness and the forgiving string bed really helped in that regard..naturally, the London is better at creating angles and more looping shots. The Melbourne is better if you hit a more penetrating ball from behind as the string pattern makes groundstrokes less forgiving. You can definetly use more of the mass of the racquet and it's less about the ability to whip it around... although it is still pretty quick through the air. I was also impressed with the feel on lobs...very similar to the London which i consider the standard bearer on lobs.

vs. the PB10 Mid:
I love the PB10 Mid and ideally it'll eventually be my goto racquet but was looking for something with a slightly larger head size for my off days or when I played outside on a windy day. The Melbourne might had a larger head size, but I think the sweetspot is very close to the PB10. The PB10 just has a very consistent string bed that's very forgiving and was easier for me on groundstrokes. Again, this may just require me adjusting to an 18x20 string bed. PB10 wins at the net and on overheads based on the maneuverability. The Melbourne hits a more penetrating and heavier serve. The PB10 has a slightly hollower feeling to the racquet whereas the Melbourne is just solid feeling.

vs the Head YT Prestige MP:
I wanted to compare this racquet because I found they hit similarly... now I had the Head for about 2 months before I decided it was too demanding for me. Both have a comfortable hitting sweetspot, a solid feel and an 18 by 20 string pattern with similar control properties... The Head was more maneuverable and slightly more polarized weight wise. I found the Melbourne more forgiving. Although the Head says 98 sq in, it plays more like a 95. Groundstrokes were probably more penetrating on the Prestige MP. However, serves were much easier on the Melbourne.

vs the Yonex:
Still remains to be seen if the Melbourne can knock off my main stick... If i can get my forehand working than it probably will as i have far more control on my backhands. My yonex has better spin potential, better angles, and is more forgiving. But what I was really looking for was a racquet with a little more stiffness, maneuverability, and slightly lighter... so hopefully I can find the wild side of 18x20...

sorry for being haphazard... just trying to get these thoughts down as they come to me. sure i forgot something, so if you have specific questions to these comparrisons, let me know.

I got my becker melbourne this week and used it for about 2 hours tonight. I had it strung at 55lbs with a tour bite 17 / kirshbaum touch multifiber 17 hybrid...

My main racquet is a Yonex Super Rd, but I also owned the PB10 Mid, The Becker London, and the Head YT Prestige MP which I'll use to compare the Melbourne.

Overall I was impressed with the Melbourne. The weight and static feel was very similar to my Yonex. Serves were heavy and deep... and the control was very good. My backhand which is traditionally my weakness worked beautifully as I spanked balls back deep and the slices had lots of bite to them. Part of it's success was due to the tight string pattern and also the weight of the racquet and its plow thru. The biggest problem I had was on my forehand ground strokes as I didn't get as much top spin penetrating groundstrokes as I normally do... It's hard to say if this is due to hitting the ball off-center trying to get topspin or because of the 18x20 string pattern that i'm not used to... anyway, this will require some adjustments but the racquet wasn't very forgiving on those mishits.

Now to compare...

vs the London:
Both have soft comfortable hits on impact. Very comfortable when you hit the sweet spot on the Melbourne and I think the recessed grommets on the side play a huge role in that. Lots of dwell time too. Obviously, the control is much better on the Melbourne as certain balls tended to sail on me with the London. However, if your strictly looking for a heavier london, then I think you'll be dissappointed. These racquets are for two different types of games. The London made me into mostle a brusher and I had to use spin to keep the ball in. So the whippiness and the forgiving string bed really helped in that regard..naturally, the London is better at creating angles and more looping shots. The Melbourne is better if you hit a more penetrating ball from behind as the string pattern makes groundstrokes less forgiving. You can definetly use more of the mass of the racquet and it's less about the ability to whip it around... although it is still pretty quick through the air. I was also impressed with the feel on lobs...very similar to the London which i consider the standard bearer on lobs.

vs. the PB10 Mid:
I love the PB10 Mid and ideally it'll eventually be my goto racquet but was looking for something with a slightly larger head size for my off days or when I played outside on a windy day. The Melbourne might had a larger head size, but I think the sweetspot is very close to the PB10. The PB10 just has a very consistent string bed that's very forgiving and was easier for me on groundstrokes. Again, this may just require me adjusting to an 18x20 string bed. PB10 wins at the net and on overheads based on the maneuverability. The Melbourne hits a more penetrating and heavier serve. The PB10 has a slightly hollower feeling to the racquet whereas the Melbourne is just solid feeling.

vs the Head YT Prestige MP:
I wanted to compare this racquet because I found they hit similarly... now I had the Head for about 2 months before I decided it was too demanding for me. Both have a comfortable hitting sweetspot, a solid feel and an 18 by 20 string pattern with similar control properties... The Head was more maneuverable and slightly more polarized weight wise. I found the Melbourne more forgiving. Although the Head says 98 sq in, it plays more like a 95. Groundstrokes were probably more penetrating on the Prestige MP. However, serves were much easier on the Melbourne.

vs the Yonex:
Still remains to be seen if the Melbourne can knock off my main stick... If i can get my forehand working than it probably will as i have far more control on my backhands. My yonex has better spin potential, better angles, and is more forgiving. But what I was really looking for was a racquet with a little more stiffness, maneuverability, and slightly lighter... so hopefully I can find the wild side of 18x20...

sorry for being haphazard... just trying to get these thoughts down as they come to me. sure i forgot something, so if you have specific questions to these comparrisons, let me know.

I got my becker melbourne this week and used it for about 2 hours tonight. I had it strung at 55lbs with a tour bite 17 / kirshbaum touch multifiber 17 hybrid...

My main racquet is a Yonex Super Rd, but I also owned the PB10 Mid, The Becker London, and the Head YT Prestige MP which I'll use to compare the Melbourne.

Overall I was impressed with the Melbourne. The weight and static feel was very similar to my Yonex. Serves were heavy and deep... and the control was very good. My backhand which is traditionally my weakness worked beautifully as I spanked balls back deep and the slices had lots of bite to them. Part of it's success was due to the tight string pattern and also the weight of the racquet and its plow thru. The biggest problem I had was on my forehand ground strokes as I didn't get as much top spin penetrating groundstrokes as I normally do... It's hard to say if this is due to hitting the ball off-center trying to get topspin or because of the 18x20 string pattern that i'm not used to... anyway, this will require some adjustments but the racquet wasn't very forgiving on those mishits.

Now to compare...

vs the London:
Both have soft comfortable hits on impact. Very comfortable when you hit the sweet spot on the Melbourne and I think the recessed grommets on the side play a huge role in that. Lots of dwell time too. Obviously, the control is much better on the Melbourne as certain balls tended to sail on me with the London. However, if your strictly looking for a heavier london, then I think you'll be dissappointed. These racquets are for two different types of games. The London made me into mostle a brusher and I had to use spin to keep the ball in. So the whippiness and the forgiving string bed really helped in that regard..naturally, the London is better at creating angles and more looping shots. The Melbourne is better if you hit a more penetrating ball from behind as the string pattern makes groundstrokes less forgiving. You can definetly use more of the mass of the racquet and it's less about the ability to whip it around... although it is still pretty quick through the air. I was also impressed with the feel on lobs...very similar to the London which i consider the standard bearer on lobs.

Click to expand...

We've done a lot of experimentation with the Melbourne for 6.5 player who would normally used poly, but in this frame, the poly actually impeded his ability to hit with a lot of topspin. He settled on a soft multi, which solved some of the issues which you mentioned. Previously, he used the Legend, followed by the London, and back to the improved Legend, the Melbourne. The sticks were designed with the same player in mind. Also, if you pressure the back of the ball more when using the London, it won't sail.

We've done a lot of experimentation with the Melbourne for 6.5 player who would normally used poly, but in this frame, the poly actually impeded his ability to hit with a lot of topspin. He settled on a soft multi, which solved some of the issues which you mentioned. Previously, he used the Legend, followed by the London, and back to the improved Legend, the Melbourne. The sticks were designed with the same player in mind. Also, if you pressure the back of the ball more when using the London, it won't sail.

even with the recessed grommets, do you still string the crosses looser than the mains?

i'm still trying to adjust to the 18x20 string pattern and am looking for a little more liveliness on my forehand.

Click to expand...

Yes, drop the cross string tension. The reason why I am moving towards this stick is because it is so lively and responsive for 18 mains. Secondly, one of my players switched to it, and another is now switching to it, and they keep talking about the liveliness and the spin access.

Yes, drop the cross string tension. The reason why I am moving towards this stick is because it is so lively and responsive for 18 mains. Secondly, one of my players switched to it, and another is now switching to it, and they keep talking about the liveliness and the spin access.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I have no doubt this stick is lively for a 18x20... I know the potential is there. But my current set up feels like i'm hitting a brick wall on my forehand and i'm just looking for a little more forgiveness that a 16x19 pattern provides. I currently have a hybrid strung at 55 but will probably drop it a little next time out.

This racquet has improved all my shots except for the aforementioned forehand which is my main weapon...

Thanks. I have no doubt this stick is lively for a 18x20... I know the potential is there. But my current set up feels like i'm hitting a brick wall on my forehand and i'm just looking for a little more forgiveness that a 16x19 pattern provides. I currently have a hybrid strung at 55 but will probably drop it a little next time out.

This racquet has improved all my shots except for the aforementioned forehand which is my main weapon...

Click to expand...

IMO, hybriding with poly reduces the ball pocketing, unless you really drop the main string tension and up the cross string tension of the multi/gut? crosses to match. For instance, Big Banger mains@45/pre-stretched NXT Tour@50. Another possibility would be a soft co-poly string bed, perhaps Cyclone or Big Hitter Blue Rough, 48M/45C.

So how would you compare the stiffnesses of a co-poly and a syn. gut like Gosen? I dropped the V-Pro mains in my London 8-10% below the Gosen crosses, and this may be a mistake. Although I've dropped the cross tension 3 lbs., I'm still stringing at 50/52 and 52/54. I feel like I've lost some of the dwell of the frame, and this would explain why.

I had the opportunity to hit with a Melbourne. Normally play with the London. I believe the racquet is above my skill level (at least to get the most out of it), but I was very impressed with many of the qualities of it.
Even with being listed as a stiffer racquet, it feels very good on the arm and shoulder. Offered great control and great volleys. Had a little trouble getting pop on my serve but the directional control on serves was excellent.

One thing that I will say about the Melbourne is that the posted stiffness rating of 64 is total BS. All three of my guys have chronic injuries which kept them from having the pro and collegiate careers that they should have had; elbow tendonosis, rotator cuff--two operations--and the last, wrist issues and a L3 stress fracture which kept him off his college team for two years. They were good enough for Player Development to give them Futures WCs before and during college; they were that good. They all switched to the Melbourne because they could play injury free, and still make the ball sing their tune. It is far softer than 64!!!

I agree about this racquet being arm and shoulder friendly. Imo it feels a little stiffer than the London. Maybe it is stability rather than stiffness. In any event it is equally easy on the shoulder and elbow.

I briefly played with the Prince EXO Tour which has a lower stiffness rating and it was not nearly as comfortable as the london or the melbourne.

hello there my friend! yes it has been a while. things are good here. i have been hitting with todd p. and brought my game up to where i am leading up my red stars. all is okay for now but if i find that i can handle the weight of a melbourne i would just play with that stock. the rest of the specs are perfect for me. i do not mind adding it to my collection and at some point it may become my main frame.

i hope all is well with you in the big city. you probably got to the us open too. i was there last weekend before all the rain hit again and enjoyed it. you take care, and i will let you know how it all works out between the bb melbourne and me

hello there my friend! yes it has been a while. things are good here. i have been hitting with todd p. and brought my game up to where i am leading up my red stars. all is okay for now but if i find that i can handle the weight of a melbourne i would just play with that stock. the rest of the specs are perfect for me. i do not mind adding it to my collection and at some point it may become my main frame.

i hope all is well with you in the big city. you probably got to the us open too. i was there last weekend before all the rain hit again and enjoyed it. you take care, and i will let you know how it all works out between the bb melbourne and me

Click to expand...

Tell Todd that I said, "Hello"!

One of my guys uses the Melbourne with the vibration dampener only. The other two have lead tape on the bridge, covering the center 10 mains only, and an Agassi rubber band dampener. That says a lot for guys who normally lead-up their frames. The Melbourne lay-up is impressive.

If anyone has extensively used both the melbourne and the legend, i would love to hear the comparison. I currently really like the legend, but find it a tad unstable on big serve returns and 1HBh drives. Otherwise, she is a beauty. I am comparing the Legend to a dunlop 200 tour, which is a hefty solid stick.

If anyone has extensively used both the melbourne and the legend, i would ove to hear the comparison. I currently really like the legend, but find it a tad unstable on big serve returns and 1HBh drives. Otherwise, she is a beauty. I am comparing the Legend to a dunlop 200 tour, which is a hefty solid stick.

Click to expand...

We never had any of the issues with the Legend that you have. Between the four of us, two used the Legend. They used it not only for on-court fit, but because it was very arm friendly. Both live in the gym, one has elbow tendonosis from tennis and other issues due to intense training in Filipino stick fighting, and the other lives in the gym, is 190# cut@ 5'9", and has joint problems from pumping heavy iron. One used it stock with a Volkl dampener, and the other had it beefed-up to 365 grams. Both are now using the Melbourne, one stock with the dampener as he did before, and the other is using it stock, with just lead tape on the bridge, center 10 mains only. That means that he is playing with a 350 gram Melbourne, 15 grams lighter than his Legend, which allows for far faster racquet head acceleration. He is a lefty with a Connor's like game, so the ability to hit with more spin when necessary, such as with returning slices and with spin serves, is very helpful. His Legend needed the extra 15 grams to do what the improved lay-up in the Melbourne did. They are the same stick, but the lay-up distribution made for more stability and better balance for an elite player, which increased racquet face responsiveness as well.

That's good feedback. I am thinking my issues, at the end of the day, that this is the type of frame that needs to be played very loosely and it suits aggressive play. It has a very unique feel to it that I have not felt from any other frame I have ever used. The guy I beat the other day is a regular opponent who can give me trouble, and he felt I should change nothing. I think I just need to keep logging in the hours and go out everytime and play loose and aggressively.

I think I just need to keep logging in the hours and go out everytime and play loose and aggressively.

Click to expand...

i hear you about this. i usually play with the London but have a racquet that is 13.71 oz 12pts hl and a 50 flex 90 inch head. i took this out to play some singles using the tie break point system. this racquet is my imaginary melbourne till i have disposable income for new racquets.

i was relaxed and aggressive. i have to play that way with this racquet. it's not forgiving if i play half ass. i feel i can play with this racquet longer than before with the extra strength i've gained fr practice.

One of my guys uses the Melbourne with the vibration dampener only. The other two have lead tape on the bridge, covering the center 10 mains only, and an Agassi rubber band dampener. That says a lot for guys who normally lead-up their frames. The Melbourne lay-up is impressive.

Click to expand...

I told Todd that you said hello. He sends his best to you and he may get in touch with you about potentially referring a player as he does not have time.

I got my Melbourne yesterday and it feels real good in my hand. It also has great balance so I understand why the lead tape would be best on the bridge. If I were to use those pete sampras power strips by tourna (2"=.5g) would you suggest spreading them out or is stacking 2-3 in the middle ok? I strung the Melbourne at 56/53 with my Isospeed multi but am trying out the 17g this time. I have my red stars strung this way with the 16 and love it. The head shape of the Melbourne matches my red star perfectly and I cant wait to hit with it tomorrow night.